TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

AFCop wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:My real point was that the statutory defintion of intoxication was the same for DWI, PC 46.035, and arguably PI. The defintion applies to the whole PC "chapter" 49. In other words, if you couldn't legally establish that the person was intoxicated then the "danger" element would be irrelevant.

I also take exception with the statement (not yours) that intoxication is defined at the discretion of a Peace Officer. The decision to arrest a person for some intoxication offense may be at the Peace Officer's discretion, as it is for many offenses. However, the definition of intoxication is in the law and must be established as a fact at trial if it is an element of the offense.

and well said!

What's the problem? You're only talking about a few dollars and a little of your time to establish your sobriety and prove that the arresting LEO is wrong. Go for it!

Or I could never leave the house for fear of arrest for something that isn't illegal. After all, carrying with a CHL is only a Defense to Prosecution for UCW (46.02).

At least 46.035(d) has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

AFCop wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:My real point was that the statutory defintion of intoxication was the same for DWI, PC 46.035, and arguably PI. The defintion applies to the whole PC "chapter" 49. In other words, if you couldn't legally establish that the person was intoxicated then the "danger" element would be irrelevant.

I also take exception with the statement (not yours) that intoxication is defined at the discretion of a Peace Officer. The decision to arrest a person for some intoxication offense may be at the Peace Officer's discretion, as it is for many offenses. However, the definition of intoxication is in the law and must be established as a fact at trial if it is an element of the offense.

and well said!